54 posts • joined Monday 31st March 2008 17:52 GMT
@all the parents who advocate policing their children...
If I were a teenager at this stage, I'd have a cam whether my parents allowed that or not. The only way you could prevent this would be by policing my behaviour to a pathological degree, and that says nothing good about you and the relationship you have with me. Kids grow up into adults who *also* make bad mistakes. God knows I've made them.
Surely the best approach is to *educate* your child as to the dangers, and ensure that they're as ready to become adults as you can make them.
Speaking from my experiences with my decidedly unintelligent and controlling father, the best way to alienate your child and to achieve outcomes other than your desired ones, is to attempt to *control* them all the time.
There are stupid kids, just as there are stupid adults (no, really?), for whom the best you can do is *try*. You can't ultimately save someone from their own stupidity, though. Hilariously worded afriscams make that point.
I'd say more than half of the 'women' who contact me online are men. It's kind of annoying as I don't give out nekkid pictures, I don't do cam sex (although I will talk to people on cam - partly to determine whether or not I'm *actually* talking to another woman).
Pro-tip for teenage girls - ask to see your 'friend'. On cam. Don't give out more personal details than you have to (your MSN and nothing else), and if they make excuses - block them.
And, to the hairy, sad fuckers who do this... piss off.
Law = Ass = FAIL
Uh, overreact much?
@Sean - Libertas?
Current affairs isn't really my strong point. WOuld you go into more detail about Libertas, or provide some links?
In the future, *everyone* will be stupid...
People are often some combination of abysmally stupid, fucking evil, and essentially repulsive. The *cool* thing about the internets forum is it allows you to see that without the rose-tints.
Your watchword for the new millenium is:
Y so srs?
> you can get out of the way of the mouth-breathers in cages who think they own the road
In practical terms, they *do* own the road, which is why *you* get out of *their* way. Plus, if you're going to get a bike for that reason, you need a bike with power and manouevrability. Not a scooter.
The least useful Win has to be: Moral Victory Guy...
(laughs uproariously from paraplegic ward)
I don't think Scientology is going to go away but it's possible that with enough oversight and enough pressure it could mutate into a less obviously evil form.
As to freeing ourselves from all religions? I'm not so completely convinced that this would necessarily either achieve much or be a good thing. I'm arguably as atheistic as Dawkins, but... The evil wrought in the name of religion has been wrought by the stupid and unwise, the easily led, animals in human form, and political opportunists; ie the fallible. This accounts for much of the human race; not counting Bertrand Russell and SImon Schama (the cleverest man in Britain; at least by my father's lights).
Just a thought.
> the internet: My god! It's full of tards!
Actually, the internets constitutes a self-selecting group of those people can a) buy a computer, b) keep it connected for long enough to express an opinion and c) express an opinion, however incoherently.
So, in relative terms, perhaps not quite so tardy. I realise this is damning our world with faint praise, but sometimes faint praise is better than none at all. You should therefore perhaps get off that parental/critical high horse and be *happy*.
A better idea would be a simple audible alert which triggers near the speed limit and provides feedback on the approach. It doesn't have to be intrusive.
An LED strip? Do you watch tv much while you drive?
The Job Security Hack
Hackers used to do this all the time... you been hacked, mister... giss a job mate... I'll sort you out, innit.
> or ethernet over mains everytime.
Domestic electrical systems often group several houses together on one main circuit. Years back, a suggestible friend was convinced she was hearing ghosts when she consistently heard (infant) breating on a mains-connected audio baby monitor.
So, 1337, yeah, cool. Totally. Do this...
Did you say 'overlords'?
You meant 'protectors'...
I wonder if...
Mirrored finish for the tinfoil hat, please; mine's the tinfoil coat.
@AC and then Mark...
> ... windows wasn't an operating system until NT3.51 ... although I'll have a soft spot for Windows > 95. Windows 3.1 was just a fancy GUI which required DOS to run. No DOS - No Windows .....
Actually, Windows 95/98/ME was also a fancy gui that required DOS to run. NT 3.50 was the first real MS OS, but 3.51 was pretty solid.
Mark is absolutely right about the competition aspect: when Linux first came out, proprietary Unices cost a fortune (£800 ish for SCO with some trimmings like a *compiler*?), and were frequently very buggy. System V.3 wasn't bad. Xenix was kinda pants, and one of the nicest OSes around at the time was a little known real-time UNIX-like thingy with a microkernel architecture; called OS/9; nothing to do with the Apple OS.
Windows was in the stone age with a gui task-switcher (just like the Holy Apple).
One of the other problems with the WIN32 platform was having to write code for it. The MFC was ugly and a lot of the associated technologies buggy and difficult to use. My ex and I put together a remote desktop system on WIN32, and we frequently came away from the game feeling sordid and traumatised.
DotNet is so much nicer.
Windows improved *vastly* over that period. XP is an OS I can live with but, as a programmer, I still prefer the power and flexibility of an open-source OS. Still XP for games, though.
Cue Cheap Disco Effects Defence....
I wonder how effective this would be around something which was swathed in fog?
@Mark - unreformed
Actually, I wondered whether this guy was the same closet high-level Health Ministry civ that I met, years and years and years ago. He can't be: he's a) too young and b) this other guy was on the *absolutely flaming* end of the closeted transvestite rainbow. He wore a cream suit, for example.
Please, no off-colour jokes, thenk ew.
> I actually feel sorry for Adnan Oktar.
I don't; with due respect you really should be a little more careful over handing out The Golden Order of The Mediocre Intelllect. L. Ron Hubberd was not a particularly stupid man, and I'm certain a whole plethora of so-called zealots are made in His Image.
I don't know Adnan Oktar; but I'm willing to bet that you don't either.
> "We don't have to pay for wind power - it just comes to us naturally," BWEA chief Maria McCaffery told the Beeb.
Yes we do. We need to put an infrastructure in place that can handle misfits of supply and demand, storing the supplied energy as and when, and doling it out when demand is high. This would take either extra hydroelectric capacity, or massive banks of batteries, all of which would have a cost. Then we'd need to *run* it.
Then we'd need some other technology to back the input from longer term changes in the chaotic and therefore somewhat unpredictable weather system.
Finally, if the Electric Lightning lives up to the promise of its Altairnano batteries or Shai Agassi gets his charging system widely accepted, we'll need enough spare capacity to run the private, commercial and industrial *TRANSPORT SYSTEMS*. You know, that curious thing the politicians all seem to think we can do without.
And we'll need to build electric harvesters and the plethora of other motorised widgetry that our technologically dependent civilisation runs on.
Overall, this will be much more efficient in terms of energy usage than our current setup, but we need infrastructure to support it.
...By Anonymous Coward
> I don't think you get opensource.
This is just macho horseshit, with all due respect...
Either you're grandstanding over the magnificence of your e-penis, or I don't think you get people. It takes non-trivial skill to write a driver, which is why you're so smug about it. I can do it, but most of the time I'm too lazy. Most people are (reasonably enough) too lazy *and* unable to wield the necessary tools.
Your argument boils down to 'if you can't write a driver, you shouldn't cry when it don't work'. But, Linux on the desktop is competing with a couple of mature commercial products, and that raises the expectations of the naive user. There are more naive users than there are self-aggrandising e-horse-hung uberdevelopperen like yourself.
When it doesn't work, they're not interested in *why*, because that's a bunch of tedious technical detail; when they talk about it to other people, the message is 'It don't work', albeit much more rudely expressed.
It may surprise the elitists, but the technical wieners *do* have the power of speech, and they *do* talk to each other.
Who knew? Go figure.
It's bad, but...
I can't help the horrible feeling that this is part of a propaganda precursor to some hopefully *limited* military action against Russia. Limited? Sure, I'm hoping for the moon. Russia has a big nuclear arsenal and effective delivery mechanisms.
Engaging in energy war - if this is what it's about - is an insane and profligate non-solution. We need to become self-sufficient in energy, and we need a new electric transport infrastructure. Save the oil for genuinely unavoidable wars.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Hey Reg, how about some scoop neck tees in black so I can show off my cute shoulders and architecturally enthralling collar bones? In black.
Did I mention *black*?
Coat... (full length, flared and tailored, in black suede and with a black fur full trim)
@Voice of Reason
If you've been awake for the last decade you may have noticed that a large percentage of posts by the self-elected elite, who frequent such places as Slashdot, are time-wasting drivel, and the authors are clearly unaware of that. AMFM may or may not be aware, but I find his posts to be no more annoying than any of a million others. Complaining about him seems specious in light of this fact; particularly as you've taken somewhere around a page of A4 to do so.
Bad hair day?
> frustrate the flow of intelligent discussion.
If it's gibberish, stop reading it, and move on. Not rocket science. No need for ranting and posturing.
A Cautionary Tale...
I remember coming home from school one day, and coming upon my father, who was brazing the leaks shut in a Triumph Toledo petrol tank. I took the situation in at a glance. 'That's not a good idea', I ventured. He told me to bugger off - always the charmer, my dad.
So, I went into the house, and into the farthest room from the scene of the crime. I started thinking about how I was going to cope without a father.
There was a muffled *thump*.
I thought: 'That's it, he's dead'.
I wasn't keen to see the outcome, but I'd have to face it at some point, so I got up, and went through the house and into the back yard.
He was standing there. The tank had ruptured. His face was white, and his hair was all sort of standy uppy.
I didn't say 'I told you so' because he'd obviously have killed me.
None of his kids were anything like as stupid. Perhaps intelligence *is* passed down the female line?
As was previously explained, a 32-bit system addresses 4Gb of ram. The issue with the cards, if all of the onboard card ram is mapped into the main memory address space, is that two of them contain enough ram to use *all* of the addressable space. Your system (graphics + system) uses a total of 1Gb, well within the limit, so your graphics card and motherboard memory can both be mapped into the 4Gb limit address space.
A 64 bit OS can *potentially* address much more memory (up to a maximum of 2^64 bytes), but practical hardware configurations will likely address much less.
Just a thought: your system might run a little faster if you have at least 1Gb of system ram. 512Mb would have it paging like a bad thing under many scenarios. For example, running Unreal Tournament 3 under XP with this much ram means that the game is largely unusable.
Reading between the lines...
I suspect that she was hinting at:
"I sometimes wonder if those who continue to deny the stunning insecurities of the electronic voting systems that are on the market are the soul mates of those who persist in denying the evidence of global warming, because both groups are tied to a certain corrupt political movement with strong vested interests and a track record of grinning and saying 'so what?', when caught with its pants down".
As to 'Sacred Cow, Global Warming', the consequences of getting it wrong are *quite* serious, so, if you're just recycling and excreting other opinions to satisfy your particular emotional bent, as opposed to knowing what you're talking about, you should really keep your opinion to yourself.
> An all-nuclear grid would not need energy storage. The nuclear power plants, since they do not produce any carbon at all, could simply be run, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, producing more power than the maximum that would ever be needed at peak times.
I'm sorry, John, but that's idiotic. To run the plants at peak capacity all of the time would use up the nuclear fuel unnecessarily quickly. Sure, you'd have to use a fast-breeder technology to make them viable, but this isn't *magic*. There's a finite amount of energy available here. It's a non-renewable energy source (as all all energy sources in the final analysis).
Re: some facts for the nuke haters - By Mark
I've always hated idiots. It's 'fission'. If you're going to crticise it, at least try to understand it. And, regarding the dangers of nuclear energy...
What are the dangers involved in not having enough energy to maintain our present level of technology?
Here's a couple...
Mass starvation. No clean water supply. No easy access to transportation. The logistics of running an overpopulated country: broken. Politic breakdown on a massive scale (Weimar Republic...).
If you've figured out how to make children (and sadly, Nature's made it really easy), some or all of them will probably die.
The worst aspect of being stupid is that denial is so much easier.
@American w*nkers need our help....
Give me a buzz when it happens and I'll be there with my video cam to add it to my Extreme Pornography collection. This is a textbook definition of the word. Not only does it give the (elderly) judge a w00dy, it stands the jury, and the entire legal apparatus on end. And, through the sublime magic of operant conditioning, a whole new perversion...
Thumbs up, because, well, you have to.
This would make for an excellent diversionary tactic. Send in your fulminating bearded sandaled robed red herring of choice, who refuses to show id and makes a big noise. Meanwhile, send your group of nice clean-cut terrorists, all washed behind the ears, clutching their shiny passports and frowning at all the fuss, just like everyone else. But with extra explodeyness!
A nice smiley, because it's completely fucking deranged.
Thanks for the humanitarian angle, but your post displays a basic naivety about people. Some people, regardless of how smart they are, are broken in other ways which make it impossible to reach them or work with them.
I've met more than my fair share of sociopaths. I've met people who abuse others non-stop, and then cry a Nile when they incur a bad reaction.
Some people are scarily broken.
This guy, at minimum, displays a total lack of maturity, and a level of self-centredness that strikes me as a little worrying.
Maybe three years as a missionary in China, good works at the soup kitchens and a life of virtue and prayer, will fix him.
I'm willing to bet otherwise.
Ted, you *should* pick and choose the laws you adhere to, otherwise you're an unthinking sheep, for whom the only *right* is stupid, slavish, obedience. Is this how you define yourself?
Random Number Generators
I suspect that if you google for them, you'll find hardware-based true random numbers which use a natural random noise source like the reverse biased breakdown noise from a signal diode, fed to some analogue to digital convertors. It's not rocket science, but I'd suspect they're used mostly in the intelligence community rather than in the mainstream corporate world.
What a Glorious Nation!
What a brilliant idea. This will definitely solve the problem. Delivery of a medication that by all repute (and I've known more than one smack addict) is more addictive than the heroin addiction it's supposed to fix. By machine. Still, I guess the machine can take any amount of whining and physical abuse.
It's a little like that attempt to screw with people's opiate receptors so they *can't* get addicted, disregarding the fact that this interferes with a basic neurelogical function. I've not heard much more about that. I wonder why.
I guess it all helps to whitewash the fact that the legislature response to drugs appears to generate most if not all of the problems it's supposedly intended to fix.
Short, sharp, shock. The, uh, *smack* of firm government. Wankers.
@AC - One Time Pad
If you use a one-time-pad more than once, it isn't a one-time pad.